The Regency Housekeeper

We are all familiar with Mrs. Reynolds of Pride and Prejudice. She is the friendly housekeeper who leads Elizabeth Bennet and the Gardiners on their tour of Pemberley. In the process, she espoused the wonderful attributes of her master and provided further evidence that Wickham is not to be trusted, immediately endearing herself to reader and JAFF writer alike.

In JAFF, she is often the perfect housekeeper, adoptive mother to Georgiana and Fitzwilliam, and a force within Pemberley; but what were this character’s duties as housekeeper and would she really be so close to the family?

In a large house such as Pemberley, the housekeeper supervised the female staff with the exception of the lady’s maid, the cook, and the nurse, who took their direction directly from their mistress. She also hired and fired servants as the necessity or circumstance arose.

The household accounts were also a part of her domain, and she was responsible for the stores, the china closet, and the linen cupboard. The household linen had to remain in good repair. The house had to be ready for the master and mistress to be in residence at all times since the housekeeper remained at the estate rather than travelling with her employers. She ordered and replaced items needed for the household in general and to the food stores under the supervision of her mistress when the lady was at the home.

We often read of Elizabeth Bennet in the stillroom at Longbourn, but in a large house, that was the housekeeper’s domain. She distilled essences, prepared cosmetics, and mixed medicines for those of the household as well as provided necessary items and baby linens to the poor families in the neighborhood.

We often hear of Mrs. Reynolds having an office. While she might, tours of National Trust homes in England show us a more comfortable and fairly large sitting room attached to the housekeeper’s private chambers. Within the house, these rooms were often located where she could oversee the comings and goings below the stairs, meet with the mistress of the house, and conduct other business.

It was also not unusual for the housekeeper in a large house to have a substantial income on the side from giving tours of the home as Mrs. Reynolds did at Pemberley. Visitors viewing the estate often gave generous tips for the tour, which were pocketed by the housekeeper or the butler, depending upon who escorted them through the home. The second hand tea from the house also came to be in the possession of the housekeeper. The servants could partake of the tea, but according to a National Trust guide, the housekeeper sometimes sold this commodity for extra income.

Obviously, a housekeeper’s personal life depended much upon the situation. Research shows that housekeepers were generally thought of as a higher social class than other servants—possibly due to the fact that some women who filled this position were impoverished relatives, even widowed aunts or unmarried “spinster” cousins of the master and mistress. Thus, those boundaries that existed between the servant class and the family were not as distinct as those that existed with the lower servants.

Marriage, even amongst servants, served to elevate a woman’s status, so regardless of whether the housekeeper was married or whether she was a spinster, she was typically given the title of “Mrs.” This was done to illustrate respect for the position she held within the household.

The housekeeper of a grand house would not have risen to her place without being quite formidable in regards to her abilities—especially since as authors we have Darcy speak so highly of his beloved Mrs. Reynolds. Would you not agree?

 

 

Sources:
Craig, Sheryl. Jane Austen’s Regency World Magazine. Issue 22. pp 17-18.
Horn, Pamela. Flunkeys and Scullions, Life Below Stairs in Georgian England. Sutton Publishing. 2004. pp. 139-140, 201, 205.
Laudermilk, Sharon & Hamlin, Teresa L. The Regency Companion. Garland Publishing. 1989. pp. 159-160, 184.
Ross, Josephine. Jane Austen, A Companion. Rutgers University Press. 2002. Pg. 191.
White, John S. Jane Austen’s Regency Magazine. Issue 12. Page 23.

17 comments

Skip to comment form

    • Deborah on June 16, 2015 at 5:03 am
    • Reply

    Thank you for such an informative post. I always did wonder at the familiarity shown by Mrs. Reynolds. Now this makes a great deal of sense to me. She may have been related to the Darcys. And she would most definitely have to have formidable abilities to run such an extensive household.

    1. I love that she could be related to the Darcys in some fashion! That was a tidbit I hadn’t realised before writing this. Thanks, Deborah!

    • Wendy Roberts on June 16, 2015 at 8:59 am
    • Reply

    Thanks for this information. Very interesting!

    1. I’m glad you enjoyed it! Thanks, Wendy!

    • Kathy Berlin on June 16, 2015 at 9:56 am
    • Reply

    This was wonderful information. I, too, like the idea that Mrs. Reynolds was somehow related. It makes her statement about knowing hi since he was four more understandable. She was not likely to have been housekeeper 24 years ago and is a lower level servant at that time, she really could not have claimed to have known him. As a relative, however, she would have had access to the nursery and known him from “leading strings”. I suppose she could have been a nursery maid, but it seems a stretch that a nursery maid could have risen to housekeeper, especially as there would have been a change in nursery staff between the time Darcy was born and then out of the nursery and then later, when Georgiana was born and the nursery set up again.

  1. I think it is a stretch. One thing we were told at Wimpole was that servants were not always hired from the local area to help keep gossip at bay. I would think it was very important with a housekeeper. It’s harder to establish yourself as a manager when you’ve been on equal or lesser footing with those you are managing. I’m glad you enjoyed the article! I also love that Mrs. Reynolds could have been a relation. Gets my imagination going too! Thanks, Kathy!

  2. Informative article, Leslie. It’s always difficult for people today to get beyond the term “housekeeper” and realize that she held a highly respected position, one even thought worthy of a gentlewoman in need of a home and occupation. Your research gives justification to the fact that at the end of “The Darcys of Pemberley” I have the widowed and homeless Charlotte Collins taking the position at Pemberley after Mrs. Reynolds dies. She and Elizabeth, lifelong friends, then work together as a team to manage the household. As Elizabeth says to Darcy when they’re discussing the possibility:

    “I think it is an inspired idea! Considering how much Charlotte enjoyed managing the parsonage at Hunsford, I warrant she would take great pleasure in the larger challenge of superintending this house. She loves to be active and useful. As for remarrying, I do not think that is her object. She never was a romantic. She only married Mr. Collins as a means to support herself.” Elizabeth laughed when she remembered what Charlotte had said about that. “She told me then that all she really required was a comfortable home. I thing Pemberley qualifies, do not you, Darcy?”

    1. It does justify your plot line, which is very interesting by the way! I love finding little facts that I hadn’t realised prior to writing these posts. Thanks, Shannon!

      • Beatrice on June 18, 2015 at 2:06 am
      • Reply

      I love the quote by Elizabeth!! So spot on!

  3. Such an intriguing article–reminds me of Mrs. Hughes at Downton Abbey! 🙂

    Thanks for writing and posting for us!

    Warmly,
    Susanne 🙂

    1. I think a lot of Mrs. Hughs at Downton! I have never had the impression she was related in any form, but she was unmarried her entire life (until she marries Carson) and is a very competent household manager. I’m glad you were intrigued! Thanks, Susanne!

    • Sheila L. M. on June 17, 2015 at 2:04 pm
    • Reply

    I think of Mrs. Fairfax in Jane Eyre: her husband was related to Rochester. Hiring a relative, distant or not, was surely a way of inspiring loyalty as well as trust. Relatives would usually be more protective of the family name and thus be on guard against gossip. Hiring outside of the loyal area is a new idea but I could see how it would also protect the family against gossip plus it would also create to separate the servants from locals in matters of family members coming to the door looking for shelter, handouts or just to “visit”. That sounds mean but with someone like Lady C. I am sure these were factors considered in hiring. Although with the Darcy family I am sure their relationship with the community was one of realizing happy townsfolk and area residents led to the community be protective of the family who provided jobs, Harvest Balls and Christmas baskets and support of charities and the church.

    1. I agree about relatives being more protective of the family. Thanks for stopping by, Sheila!

    • Beatrice on June 18, 2015 at 2:25 am
    • Reply

    Thank you for the post.
    I hope there’s a give-away of a Regency housekeeper. I could sure use one – even if all she does is supervise the female staff (which would be me).
    BTW I think that if the mistress had a special interest in it – and some did,- she handled the stillroom herself, regardless of whose responsibility it generally was.

    1. I’m sure the mistress could assume any extra duties she wished–after all, she was the mistress. However, I could see quite a few of those mistresses being like Caroline Bingley and feeling the duty below them. I will say that if I had a Regency housekeeper, I wouldn’t be giving her away! 😉 Thanks, Beatrice!

  4. Thank you for this very informative post. I love the image of the housekeeper blending the cosmetics for the ladies of the house. Interesting.

    1. Hi Barbara! Thanks for stopping by and giving it a read. I’m glad you found it enjoyable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.